Line of Enquiry 2: the information to support a framework

delves beyond the literature describing the information included in frameworks. It analyses methodologies developed in different contexts (including different scales) to determine the drivers directly influencing and shaping the adoption of different types of information; and any interconnections between the information required and the other two elements of a methodology. By identifying these drivers and understanding why certain information was included (or not), we can learn from others experiences and better determine what information is required to support a framework for ecosystem services assessments across multiple scales? The literature revealed five key topics requiring further analysis under this Line of Enquiry, they include:

 the position of biodiversity in frameworks;

 assessment units;

 ecological processes;

 ecosystem services; and

 methods for valuing ecosystem services.

The documents reviewed revealed an inconsistency in the priority given to biodiversity,

its role in providing ecosystem services, and its position within different frameworks; hence the choice of biodiversity becoming another key topic for analysis. These different priorities and positions result in inconsistencies in how biodiversity and ecosystem services are assessed using the frameworks. In both Figure 1.1 showing the MA’s schematic of the ecosystem services concept and Figure 2.2 showing the MA’s conceptual framework biodiversity (as defined by the CBD) is shown as underpinning all life on Earth and the provision of ecosystem services.

The TEEB (2010a) framework also recognises biodiversity as underpinning the provision of ecosystem services and this position is presented clearly in its conceptual framework (Figure 2.3). In frameworks developed primarily for national accounting systems, however, little if any attention is given to biodiversity’s role (Otts and Staub 2009; Haines-Young and Potschin 2010a; Staub et al. 2011; UNSD 2012). Balmford and Bond (2005) suggest the term biodiversity is not adequate for ecosystem services assessments as it does not give attention to the amount of living organisms and only to its diversity. According to Kremen (2005) few assessments give adequate attention to the role biodiversity plays in the delivery of ecosystem services.

The units for assessing ecosystem services using the MA global scale framework are the 10 Reporting Categories listed in Box 2.1. The MA (2005a, p. 53) states they use

overlapping categories ‘because this better reflects real-world biological, social and geophysical interactions, particularly at these relatively large scales’. TEEB (2010), another global scale program, uses biomes as their assessment units. The MA Reporting Categories and TEEB biomes were too broad for smaller scale assessments so each Reporting Category and biome contains a number of more defined ecosystems better suited to the scale of sub-global assessments. In the MA (2005a, p. 53) ecosystems were grouped under each Reporting Category by similarities in: ‘climatic conditions,

geophysical condition, dominant use by humans, surface cover, species composition, resource management systems and institutions’. The size and location of ecosystems are secondary to these criteria in the MA’s systems analysis.

Whilst the MA (2005a) recognises the importance of assessing and reporting on the full range of ecosystems in the area under assessment, other researchers dismiss the use of ecosystems as assessment and reporting units opting for alternatives such resource governance regions (Meyerson et al. 2005), the scale of service delivery (Brunckhorst et al. 2006), and place-based units (Potschin and Haines-Young 2013). As noted in

Chapter 2, authors say these units better capture the spatial explicitness of ecosystem service provision and value; and their context as a coupled human and nature system (Meyerson et al. 2005; Brunckhorst et al. 2006; Potschin and Haines-Young 2013). The literature revealed no agreement across researchers as to the appropriate spatial unit to assess ecosystem services so this is a key topic for further analysis.

70

Energy flows, water and nutrient (biogeochemical) cycling, and community dynamics are fundamental ecological processes that support life on Earth (TEEB 2010). The most recent literature discussing ecological processes uses the term interchangeably with ecosystem functions, intermediate services and supporting services (MA 2005a; Wallace 2007; Haines-Young and Potschin 2010b; Maynard et al. 2010; UK NEA 2011b). Haines-Young and Potschin (2010a, p. 7) who developed CICES and the underpinning ‘cascade model’ shown as Figure 2.4 say, ‘it is important to distinguish between ecosystem structure, process and function … it is important to distinguish between ecosystem functions and services’. Balmford and Bond (2005) and Nichols et al. (2008) support Haines-Young and Potschin’s (2010a) suggestion that to predict environmental impacts a clear understanding of ecosystem functions is required.

As mentioned previously, the MA framework categorises ecosystem services along functional lines but provides little detail on the links between biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services (MA 2005a). Since the MA, to better incorporate information on ecological processes in applications of the ecosystem services concept, the function analysis developed by de Groot (2002, 2006) has been widely used (Maynard et al. 2010; TEEB 2010). The attention given to ecological processes in frameworks is highlighted as a key topic for further analysis. The interchangeable use of terms and concepts provides reason to assess ecological

processes, ecosystem functions, intermediate services and supporting services together in this research.

The literature revealed the definition, classification and categorisation of ecosystem services as an important topic for further research. The MA’s ecosystem services definition has been criticised for its potential to double count if used in economic valuations. In Australia, Maynard and Cork (2011) say that since 2005 there was a strong tendency to use the MA definition but more recent studies use that included in TEEB (2010) or the UK NEA (2011b). The definitions in TEEB (2010), UK NEA (2011b), SEEA (UNSD 2012), CICES (Haines-Young and Potschin 2010a) and others have built on new schools of thought on the classification of ecosystem services, specifically the concept of Final Ecosystem Services (FES) used by Boyd and Banzhaf (2007) and Fisher and Turner (2008).

Inconsistency is not only evident in the definition and classification of ecosystems services but also in the type and number of services being assessed. Using various definitions and categorisations the methodologies reviewed included from 11 to 28 ecosystem services. In the MA framework 24 Provisioning, Regulating and Cultural Services are identified and seven Supporting Services. Cork (2002b), MA (2005a) and Costanza et al. (2011) say the full range of ecosystem services need to be assessed to make ethical and informed decisions and to ‘prevent creating dysfunctional incentives and to maximise net benefits to society' (Costanza 2011, p. 2).

The MA (2005a, p. 37) continues, ‘just as it is not enough to examine a single ecosystem service in isolation from its interaction with other services, so too it is insufficient to focus on only a single attribute of human well-being’. Determining the value of ecosystems services and to whom they provide value presents significant challenges to researchers. Often this value is determined by people’s perceptions and people often have limited knowledge on how underlining ecological processes are providing them benefits (MA 2005a). Further challenges exist due to the intrinsic value that some people ascribe to ecosystems and the challenge of measuring values

associated with non-marketed ecosystem services (Heal 2000; MA 2005a; Costanza et al. 2007). The MA purposely did not focus on the economics of ecosystem change, but on the human well-being dimensions of service provision (MA 2005a; TEEB 2010). In Figure 1.1 arrows between categories of ecosystem services and COWB show the intensity of linkages between the two and the potential for mediation by socio-economic factors (e.g. markets, access and transportation to areas providing services, education).

The proposed need to conduct economic analysis and the inability of the MA

framework to do this robustly were major factors underpinning many other schools of thought such as Boyd and Banzhaf (2007), Wallace (2007), EPA (2008), Fisher and Turner (2008), Morrison and Hatton-MacDonald (2010), Johnston and Russell (2011), Staub et al. (2011), UK NEA (2011b) and Landers and Nahlik (2013). Although the literature discussing the need for economic analysis is extensive many local to regional scale frameworks (such as those in Australia) still preferred valuation through well- being and non-monetary approaches (Wallace 2007; Maynard et al. 2010). The inconsistency of approaches to valuing ecosystem services and the gap between paradigms of thinking on well-being and monetary valuations warrants this topic as an

72

The applied research in SEQ and multiple-case study analysis in the US and UK are designed to learn from others experience in developing information to support

ecosystem services frameworks. Outcomes of applying this Line of Enquiry to the SEQ, US and UK programs are discussed in Sections 4.2, 5.2 and 6.2 respectively. Relevant sub-sections describe the role of biodiversity in assessments and its position in the frameworks; the assessment units; ecological processes; ecosystem services; and the valuation approaches applied under these programs. Section 7.2 presents the lessons learnt from cross-analysing methodologies and research approaches, and from this, provides Recommendations for determining appropriate information to develop a framework. The Line of Enquiry into decision support tools is discussed next.